DOJ Quietly (Midnight, Election Eve) Releases Docs Showing Mueller Investigated and Chose Not to Charge Assange, WikiLeaks, and Roger Stone For DNC Hacks

The Deep State DOJ last night silently released a report they apparently wanted to hide during the election. 

Far left Buzz Feed reported last night:

Prosecutors investigated Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and Roger Stone for the hacking of Democratic National Committee servers as well as for possible campaign finance violations, but ultimately chose not to charge them, newly released portions of the Mueller Report reveal…

…The role that Stone and Assange may have played in the hacks or their distribution has been the subject of much speculation. Little, however, was known about how intently the special counsel focused on those individuals as possible targets for prosecution during the two-year investigation into Russian election interference. But a new version of the 448-page Mueller report released Monday by the Justice Department contains previously redacted sections on 13 pages, nearly all of them dealing with events surrounding the hacked emails and their eventual publication.

The redacted document is as follows:

The less-redacted document uncovers the shocking news about Roger Stone and WikiLeaks:

Because the Mueller gang never spoke with Assange it is difficult to determine what they would have charged him with or how they could without speaking with him.

However, Roger Stone did testify while the Russia sham was in place.  Stone eventually was harassed and charged with lying to the FBI as a result.  He received an outrageous sentence as a result of a kangaroo DC court, led by corrupt DC judge Amy Berman Jackson and found guilty by a far-left jury.  Eventually Stone’s outrageous sentence was commuted by the President.

Roger Stone reached out to the Gateway Pundit and shared his response to this news:

STATEMENT OF ROGER STONE- Nov 3, 2020

“The midnight release by the Department Justice of the unredacted sections of the Mueller report tonight not only vindicates me and proves what I has been saying since the very beginning of this investigation, that I did not engage in any illegal activity around the emails hacked from the DNC and that I in no way knew the source, content or timing of their release.  No matter how hard the illegally constituted Mueller team tried, they could not make the case they tried to pin on me  from the start.  These newly unredacted sections are full of euphemisms for the ultimate conclusion that evidence simply did not exist of my  involvement. The Timing of the release of these redacted sections of the Mueller Report- midnight on the day of the Presidential election only underlines the entirely corrupt and political nature of this entire witch hunt.”

Source: The Gateway Pundit

Bill Barr’s ‘Unmasking’ Probe Into Obama Officials Concludes without Charges

The US Attorney tapped by Attorney General Bill Barr to investigate “unmasking” done by Obama’s criminal officials around the 2016 has concluded the probe without bringing any charges, according to the Washington Post.

US Attorney John Bash reportedly found no evidence of wrongdoing and concluded the probe without charges and without a public report.

The probe into unmasking was launched in May of this year after then-acting DNI Richard Grenell declassified the list of Obama officials involved in the unmasking of General Mike Flynn in his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Names included former CIA Director John Brennan, Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power and former DNI chief James Clapper.

Joe Biden was also on the list!

US Attorney John Bash was also investigating whether Obama officials leaked information to reporters, but found no wrongdoing.

The Washington Post reported:

The federal prosecutor appointed by Attorney General William P. Barr to review whether Obama-era officials improperly requested the identities of individuals whose names were redacted in intelligence documents has completed his work without finding any substantive wrongdoing, according to people familiar with the matter.

The revelation that U.S. Attorney John Bash, who left the department last week, had concluded his review without criminal charges or any public report will rankle President Trump at a moment when he is particularly upset at the Justice Department. The department has so far declined to release the results of Bash’s work, though people familiar with his findings say they would likely disappoint conservatives who have tried to paint the “unmasking” of names — a common practice in government to help understand classified documents — as a political conspiracy.

Bash’s team was focused not just on unmasking, but also on whether Obama-era officials provided information to reporters, according to people familiar with the probe, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive investigation. But the findings ultimately turned over to Barr fell short of what Trump and others might have hoped, and the attorney general’s office elected not to release them publicly, the people familiar with the matter said.

US Attorney from Connecticut John Durham is currently investigating the origins of Spygate and according to Barr, there won’t be any indictments and or report until after the election.

Source: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/10/report-bill-barrs-unmasking-probe-obama-officials-concludes-without-charges/

CBS Obtains 94-Page Outline Showing FBI and Chris Steele Collaborative Use of Media Reporting…

CBS News Catherine Herridge has obtained a 94-page spread sheet (pdf here) showing dates of media reports, dates of Steele reports on the same material, and the FBI effort to verify or validate the circular process.   In essence this is evidence of the process we initially shared almost three years ago; only now we know the names.

Former SSCI staffer Dan Jones, former Wall Street Journal reporter Glenn Simpson, and Simpson’s crew at Fusion-GPS, pitched and planted phony Trump-Russia evidence with the media and simultaneously gave those fake points to Chris Steele to supplement the dossier.  Using the same method of Ezra Klein’s “JournOList” replication, Dan Jones and Fusion-GPS paid the journalists to run the stories.

…”media reports on FBI reports of media reports”…

Steele then used the same information from Jones and Fusion in his Dossier and cited the planted media reports; as evidence to substantiate.  The Dossier is then provided to the FBI.  The journalists then provide *indulgences* to the FBI as part of the collaboration.

The FBI, specifically Lisa Page, Peter Strzok and public information office Mike Kortan, then leak the outcomes of the FBI Dossier investigative processes to the same media that have reported on the originating material.   It is all a big circle of planting and laundering the same originating false material; aka a “wrap up smear.”

Continue Reading at TheConservativeTreehouse.com

Michael Flynn Finally Wins; D.C. Circuit Orders Case Dismissed

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 2-1 Wednesday that a lower court must grant a request by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to drop its case against former National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (Ret.).

Flynn won his request for a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Emmet Sullivan to grant the DOJ’s motion last month.

The appeals court order states:

Upon consideration of the emergency petition for a writ of mandamus, the responses thereto, and the reply, the briefs of amici curiae in support of the parties, and the argument by counsel, it is ORDERED that Flynn’s petition for a writ of mandamus be granted in part; the District Court is directed to grant the government’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss; and the District Court’s order appointing an amicus is hereby vacated as moot, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date.

The appeals court judges in the case were: Karen Henderson, Robert Wilkins, and Neomi Rao. Wilkins is a former President Obama appointee, Rao is a President Trump appointee, and Henderson is a former President George H.W. Bush appointee.

Continue Reading at Breitbart…

Unbelievable! Just when you think the nightmare is over for General flynn, the deep state judge Sullivan appeals the decision of the district court. The full DC Circuit court of appeals (mostly democrats) will now hear Judge Sullivan’s appeal in Michael Flynn Case to determine if the District Court got it right or not.

“60 Minutes” Runs Propaganda Cover Piece for Crowdstrike who Concocted the Alleged “Russian Hack”

60 Minutes attacks President Donald Trump and The Gateway Pundit in another shoddy hit piece. The news magazine claimed Crowdstrike was correct in assessing that the DNC was hacked by Russians in 2016.  But all they offer as proof is hearsay and weak arguments. 60 Minutes and Crowdstrike are dead wrong AND WE HAVE THE PROOF.

For years now the FBI and Mueller investigation claimed that Russia hacked the DNC during the lead up to the 2016 election.  This is central to the Russia-Collusion narrative.  But the actual evidence shows the Russia collusion scam is one of the biggest lies pushed on the American people in US history.

60 Minutes report, authored by Scott Pelley, was regarding Crowdstrike’s claims that Russia hacked the DNC in 2016 before the Podesta emails were published by Wikileaks.  In their piece the far left media outlet suggested The Gateway Pundit (TGP) pushes conspiracy theories and flashed an image of a 2017 TGP report.

This was a bold move considering the topic of the 60 Minutes segment.  60 Minutes insinuated that what TGP posted in 2017 that was conspiratorial, but our 2017 post shared a chart that was also published by WikiLeaks at that time.

In 2017 TGP correctly reported that the website Cyber Berkut had published links and a chart showing connections between the Ukrainian officials and the Clintons:

Of course 60 Minutes cannot point to any conspiracy with our 2017 post linked to above.   We took the information directly from the Cyber Berkut webpage. 60 Minutes went on to push the discredited Trump-Russia conspiracy.

The segment is the first report that we are aware of where the media actually addresses the fact that the favor President Trump asked of the Ukraine in a recent call was related to Crowdstrike. President Trump only discussed the Bidens on his call with Ukrainian President Zelensky after they were brought up by the Ukrainian President.  60 Minutes says, “Mr. Trump asked for [Crowdstrike] even before his request that Ukraine also investigate the son of Vice President Biden.”

Clearly if you read the call transcript you can see that the President’s request was regarding Crowdstrike and the Bidens only came up after their corrupt actions were noted by the Ukrainian leader. This is a major misrepresentation by Scott Pelley.

Pelley, from 60 Minutes, uses former anti-Trump Ambassador Bill Taylor, from the sham impeachment fiasco, as his expert witness on the Ukraine.  Taylor claims he knows of no connection between Crowdstrike and the Ukraine.

Pelley then shared the following in his report [emphasis added]:

Robert Johnston dealt directly with the FBI as an investigator of the DNC hack for CrowdStrike, a leading cyber security company hired by the Democrats. He told us the FBI didn’t physically examine the DNC servers because CrowdStrike gave the bureau copies of the data from the servers.

If there is a server or a computer system of any kind that’s involved in the incident you can take an exact bit for bit digital copy of what’s on that system. Now that digital copy is just as good as having the real thing,” Johnston said.

“As far as you know, the FBI got what it needed and what it wanted?” Pelley asked Johnston.

“Exactly and evidence of that is you don’t hear the FBI complaining,” Johnston said.

He’s right. A former senior government official, familiar with the investigation, told us the FBI would have preferred to work alongside CrowdStrike’s investigators, but the Democratic National Committee decided to give the bureau digital copies of its servers instead. The official told us this was “acceptable,” in fact even typical in FBI investigations.

What shameless liars! How pathetic is 60 Minutes in spreading these ridiculous Crowdstrike statements?

Who Is Crowdstrike?

We know that Crowdstike is related to the Ukraine and this is through Ukrainian billionaire and longtime contributor to the Clinton Foundation Victor Pinchuk.   We also know Crowdstrike is connected to James Clapper and the Atlantic Group:

Pinchuk serves on the International Advisory Board of a Washington-based think tank called the Atlantic Council. This group is “connected to Ukrainian interests through its “Ukraine in Europe Initiative,” which is designed to galvanize international support for an independent Ukraine within secure borders whose people will determine their own future.” Also serving on the International Advisory Board of the Atlantic Council is James Clapper, who served as Obama’s Director of National Intelligence. Funnily enough, Bongino discovered that the Chief Technology Officer of “the only company that investigated the hacking of the DNC’s servers and quickly determined it was the Russians, is a nonresident senior fellow in cybersecurity” at the Atlantic Council. His name is Dmitri Alperovitch (owner of CrowdStrike).”

We know that in July 2015 Google invested $100 million into Crowdstrike –

Google Capital, the two-year-old growth equity arm of search giant Google (GOOG), announced its first security investment on Monday morning.

The fund has pumped $100 million into cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. It was joined by cloud computing company Rackspace (RAX), which is a customer, and the firm’s existing investors Accel and Warburg Pincus. The new infusion represents a Series C round for the Irvine, Calif.-based company, bringing its total funding raised to date to $156 million.

Holes in Crowdstike’s Claims –

There are many holes with the ‘Russia hacked the DNC emails’ claim, much of what has already been posted here at TGP. Several individuals previously shared they have sources who claim that the DNC servers were never examined by Crowdstrike:

It was also uncovered in the Roger Stone case that CrowdStrike gave the US government three “draft reports” on the so-called hack by Russia which were full of redactions and the FBI just took their word for it.  It was also reported that the DOJ never received the unredacted copies of Crowdstrike’s reports:

Former NSA whistleblower Bill Binney previously reported he has evidence the DNC emails were not hacked but copied most likely on to a flashdrive or something similar.

(Binney is brilliant.  See the documentary on Binney entitled: “A Good American” – it will astound you.)

Binney has proof for his assertion but Crowdstrike and the DNC to date have provided no support that it was Russia who hacked the DNC. 

Binney also claims that the Mueller gang wouldn’t even look at his data because they knew it would show something different than what they presented in their final bogus report (i.e. Mueller’s dossier as referred to by Devin Nunes).

Apelbaum’s Argument

Cyber expert Yaacov Apelbaum says the 60 Minutes and Crowdstrike claims are completely false:

If Crowdstrike gave the FBI any data it was drive images (we don’t even know which ones). This did not include memory dumps, network pocket captures, firewall activity, etc.  This type of data is crucial and should have been examined in real-time by the FBI. If indeed any drive images were given to the FBI, these would have been contaminated because they continued to use these drives for weeks after the alleged hack.

Crowd Strike was completely wrong (most likely intentionally) about the Russian hack of the Ukrainian Artillery allegation. And we know for a fact that they used the same forensic techniques to reach that conclusion as they did on the DNC hack.

Apelbaum posted a report in January 2019, with information basically proving that the DNC was not hacked by the Russians.  Apelbaum’s first argument is this –

According to the WaPo (using CrowdStrike, DOJ, and their other usual hush-hush government sources in the know), the attack was perpetrated by a Russian unit lead by Lieutenant Captain Nikolay Kozachek who allegedly crafted a malware called X-Agent and used it to get into the network and install keystroke loggers on several PCs. This allowed them to see what the employees were typing and take screenshots of the employees’ computer.

This is pretty detailed information, but if this was the case, then how did the DOJ learn all of these ‘details’ and use them in the indictments without the FBI ever forensically evaluating the DNC/HRC computers? And since when does the DOJ, an organization that only speaks the language of indictments use hearsay and 3rd parties like the British national Matt Tait (a former GCHQ collector and a connoisseur of all things related to Russian collusion), CrowdStrike, or any other evidence lacking chain of custody certification as a primary source for prosecution?

A second point by Apelbaum is –

… that three of the Russian GRU officers on the DOJ “Wanted by the FBI” list were allegedly working concurrently on multiple non-related projects like interfering with the 2016 United States elections (both HRC and DNC) while at the same time they were also allegedly hacking anti-doping agencies (Images 2-3).

Above are pictures of the individuals the FBI says were working on both the DNC/HRC email hacking and the Olympic doping projects.

The same guys were working on both projects which is all but impossible. (Do we really know if they’re even real or even Russians?)

Apelbaum argues –

The fact that the three had multiple concurrent high impact and high visibility project assignments is odd because this is not how typical offensive cyber intelligence teams operate. These units tend to be compartmentalized, they are assigned to a specific mission, and the taskforce stays together for the entire duration of the project.

Next Apelbaum questions the Mueller gang’s assertion that the ‘hacker’ named Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian –

Any evidence that Guccifer 2.0 is Russian should be evaluated while keeping these points in mind:

He used a Russian VPN service to cloak his IP address, but did not use TOR. Using a proxy to conduct cyber operations is a SOP [Standard Operating Procedure] in all intelligence and LEA [Law Enforcement Agency] agencies. [i.e. Russia would have masked their VPN service]

He used the AOL email service that captured and forwarded his IP address and the same AOL email to contact various media outlets on the same day of the attack. This is so overt and amateurish that its unlikely to be a mistake and seems like a deliberate attempt to leave traceable breadcrumbs.

He named his Office User account Феликс Эдмундович (Felix Dzerzhinsky), after the founder of the Soviet Secret Police. Devices and accounts used in offensive cyberspace operations use random names to prevent tractability and identification. Why would anyone in the GRU use this pseudonym (beside the obvious reason) is beyond comprehension.

He copied the original Trump opposition research document and pasted it into a new .dotm template (with an editing time of about 2 minutes). This resulted in a change of the “Last Modified by” field from “Warren Flood” to “Феликс Эдмундович” and the creation of additional Russian metadata in the document. Why waste the time and effort doing this?

About 4 hours after creating the ‘Russian’ version of the document, he exported it to a PDF using LibreOffice 4.2 (in the process he lost/removed about 20 of the original pages). This was most likely done to show additional ‘Russian fingerprints’ in the form of broken hyperlink error messages in Russian (Images 4 and 5). Why bother with re-formatting and converting the source documents? Why not just get the raw data out in the original format ASAP?

Apelbaum next discusses Guccifer 2.0 –

In June 21, 2016, Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai from Vice Motherboard interviewed a person who identified himself as “Guccifer 2.0”. During their on-line chat session, the individual claimed that he was Romanian (see transcript of the interview below). His poor Romanian language skills were later used to unmask his Russian identify.

…I’m not a scientific linguist nor do I even know where to find one if my life depended on it, but I’m certain that you can’t reliably determine nationality based on someone impersonating another language or from the use of fake metadata in files. This elaborate theory also has the obvious flaw of assuming that the Russian intelligence services are dumb enough to show up to an interview posing as Romanians without actually being able to read and write flaunt Romanian.

After providing a couple more examples of why the Russian story doesn’t stick, Apelbaum closes with this –